4 ms·

Given the current propensity for political witch-hunts in American politics, disclosure is clearly a trojan horse that is really intended to intimidate people o

Given the current propensity for political witch-hunts in American politics, disclosure is clearly a trojan horse that is really intended to intimidate people over their opinions. Privacy for donors to non-profits is no different than a secret ballot, which America didn't always have. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich. The cause that he donated to was popular enough to win the election and even then, a $1000 donation was enough to undo him and force him out of his job. I don't agree with his opinions on that issue, but the precedent will clearly create a chilling effect on advocacy. Do you really think that's desirable? The freedom of advocacy is inseparable from the freedom of speech. It costs money to print pamphlets, buy air time, pay people to stand on the corner, conduct opinion polls, etc. The Citizens United case was about a non-profit organization that made a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary campaign. Their alleged violation was spending money against a politician within 30 days of a primary. Anyone who believes in free speech should have been appalled. Politicians want only politicians to be allowed to get their word out during an election. That wouldn't be a free society. The Supreme Court ruling was the only reasonable one. Say that you or I have a novel political idea that we want to advocate for. How do you propose that we do so? We'd probably form a non-profit, spend money contacting potential allies, convince them on the merits of our case and to donate to us, then spend that money on pamphlets, TV and radio ads, etc. That's freedom at work.

ddingus 11y ago
Yes. Challenges to opinion are normal, expected and required of every US citizen by design. If those opinions have merit, it will be found. All of us are subject to the law that a mere opinion could impose. Not only should that be challenged, we are required to do so. Like I said, disclosure may be enough. There is no, just try it here. Real people are impacted while living real lives. Disclosure is a reasonable check on what is significant advocacy power and access to legislators. As for your comments about the left... yes! The left cates about the little guy. No one else does. Brendan lost his job due to losing the respect of those he was supposed to lead. It would not work a day for him. I'll be frank, racism, bigotry and theocracy are completely unacceptable. Politics is a contact sport. Anyone advocating we treat others like lesser people can totally expect to be judged on it. At a minimum, those other prople are going to speak out, as they should. Hiding behind money and corporations means speech without accountability for said speech, and that is also unacceptable. There is no shield in the First Amendment, by design. The lesson here for Brendan is leading people requires you have the respect of those people. Maybe it's just not wise to classify some of those people as lesser, or wrong, or bad, undeserving people, if one wants their respect. I find avoidance of these basic dynamics very deeply offensive. Truth is, if the contact is a problem, maybe the speech is too. Go ask the people who have suffered a lot worse when speaking truth to power. Free Speech is not a license to say whatever one wants with no consequences, nor is it a license to be heard, or respected. You will see things like, "everyone has a right to their opinion", which is true. But everyone else also has a right to say what they think of that opinion too. All of that plays out as democracy and it provides checks and balances as well as the ability to challenge norms and advance the society. Out gay brothers and sisters all decided to speak up and out over how they were treated in society, and that treatment has been shown to be unjust and often for untrue reasons too. Good. Their supporters heard their story, found it compelling and acted on that. I personally won't have basic discrimination of this kind. I've walked from jobs where it was te norm, and did so long before we had the state of awareness we have today too. Everything costs something. I'm fine with disclosure as its a great check on bad idea advocacy just as its an enabler of good idea advocacy. I'm not OK at all with attempt to advance speech with impunity.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  So why draw the line at disclosure? Why not abolish the secret ballot, if politics should be a "contact sport" as you say. If anything, votes are even more powerful and important than money.
  - ddingus 11y ago
    Oh, now I can reply. Must be a glitch. Let me make an edit and take care of a few things.. This is a good topic, and your question warrants dome discussion.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      I've noticed this strange quirk of Hacker News. When a comment is new, you can reply by going to its permalink (clicking the timestamp), but not in context. (Awaiting your reply!)
      - ddingus 11y ago
        That is what happened. More in a bit.
  - ddingus 11y ago
    There isn't any "should be" in politics. It IS a contact sport. Always has been. I am, at this time, unsure if votes actually are more important than money. They are supposed to be, and in theory they are. The law says they are. But, the reality of how things play out is very seriously questionable at best. The secret vote assures every voter is free to vote their conscience, free of coercion, discrimination, etc... Right now, we've got Gerrymandering, attacks on the Voting Rights Act, and lots of other efforts to basically cut down on the number of voters voting! It's a simple, "we don't like those other people" kind of dynamic doing us no real good. Public votes, say against large corporations, would lead to people failing job searches quite often, would it not? Public votes might result in things like, North Korea having an election that went 100 percent for the supreme leader. Who would dissent? On a basic level, making the vote public would discourage voting and increase discrimination. I can't see a reason to hold someone accountable for voting their best interests, can you? I can totally see people wanting to punish and or reward people for votes they don't like, or do like. But that isn't what voting is for! Voting is where the "free" comes from in "free" society. If we are controlled or very significantly pressured to vote in ways the power likes, does that not only serve the power? Of course it does, which is why we don't do it. Speech is different. It's the debate, and it's about settling lots of issues that law really does not cover well. We can't, for example, make a reasonable, "don't be an asshole" type of law. But we can hold assholes accountable through speech in the hopes that they will reconsider being assholes, though they don't really have to do that. That's also where the "free" in free society comes from. So, then what about the freedom of those with lots of money? The "money is speech" and "corporations are people" proponents are basically erecting shields and proxies through which they can do things that impact a lot of people without those people knowing who did it to them. That's not OK. Worse, we can't really vote out people with money. They tend to own things and when they own them, they tend to exert control over them, and that impacts us. If we elect a bad leader, we can debate that, vote and try again. The key here is we know who holds the power. When it's anonymous money and proxies, we don't know anything really. Our elections, law, lives could be impacted by some hater from the other side of the world, who just happens to prefer nordic women to black women, for example. A silly one, but I don't want to offend anyone here. With power comes some responsibility and accountability, otherwise, it's just raw power and greed. That's not OK either. Disclosure would at least bring some personal responsibility to everyone in politics, not just those who lack the means to hide it from everyone. I would much prefer we fund elections with public money, require disclosure on political spending, and vote our best interests however we see them after processing all of that. But, it may just be enough to require disclosure. If somebody spends a few hundred million large on gay or minority or woman hostile advocacy, all of those people impacted can and should respond in like kind. This is going to limit the kinds of things people spend on, and those limits are appropriate checks on what is otherwise a lot of raw power. In the same vein, someone dropping a few hundred million large on STEM policy advocacy to make the nation compete better, all of those people impacted need to respond in like kind too. It may be a good response, or maybe the STEM advocacy is harmful somehow. Whatever the case. The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Proponents of Citizens United made a basic market of ideas and freedom argument. Great! That's what they got too, and we've seen it play out for a while now. Many of us are not impressed with the outcome. How do we hold these anonymous forces acting through multiple corporate proxies to account for their negative influence on how we live, work, play, love? Vote to require disclosure. That's a great first step, and a step of that nature is precisely why we can't have a public vote. Say we vote it, and it fails by just a little tiny bit. What would be the response of those who want to continue acting anonymously through proxies? Target the shit out of those anti voters. Why not? They have the bucks, they have the shield, and they get to speak without ever being spoken to, just like kings, lords and nobility of the old world we left to form this nation!
ddingus 11y ago
He could have avoided job loss by being humble, considerate and understanding of the potential impact his donation could have on the lives of his coworkers. There are no rational justifications for denying gay people the ability to marry who they love. And we are at that point of awareness now, no going back. Many of the people who got us here paid a price comparable to Brendan's, and many more paid worse, or with their lives. He can get another job, and maybe he can reconsider how he sees the people he might ask to work for him too.

ddingus 11y ago

Yes. Challenges to opinion are normal, expected and required of every US citizen by design. If those opinions have merit, it will be found. All of us are subject to the law that a mere opinion could impose. Not only should that be challenged, we are required to do so. Like I said, disclosure may be enough. There is no, just try it here. Real people are impacted while living real lives. Disclosure is a reasonable check on what is significant advocacy power and access to legislators. As for your comments about the left... yes! The left cates about the little guy. No one else does. Brendan lost his job due to losing the respect of those he was supposed to lead. It would not work a day for him. I'll be frank, racism, bigotry and theocracy are completely unacceptable. Politics is a contact sport. Anyone advocating we treat others like lesser people can totally expect to be judged on it. At a minimum, those other prople are going to speak out, as they should. Hiding behind money and corporations means speech without accountability for said speech, and that is also unacceptable. There is no shield in the First Amendment, by design. The lesson here for Brendan is leading people requires you have the respect of those people. Maybe it's just not wise to classify some of those people as lesser, or wrong, or bad, undeserving people, if one wants their respect. I find avoidance of these basic dynamics very deeply offensive. Truth is, if the contact is a problem, maybe the speech is too. Go ask the people who have suffered a lot worse when speaking truth to power. Free Speech is not a license to say whatever one wants with no consequences, nor is it a license to be heard, or respected. You will see things like, "everyone has a right to their opinion", which is true. But everyone else also has a right to say what they think of that opinion too. All of that plays out as democracy and it provides checks and balances as well as the ability to challenge norms and advance the society. Out gay brothers and sisters all decided to speak up and out over how they were treated in society, and that treatment has been shown to be unjust and often for untrue reasons too. Good. Their supporters heard their story, found it compelling and acted on that. I personally won't have basic discrimination of this kind. I've walked from jobs where it was te norm, and did so long before we had the state of awareness we have today too. Everything costs something. I'm fine with disclosure as its a great check on bad idea advocacy just as its an enabler of good idea advocacy. I'm not OK at all with attempt to advance speech with impunity.

marcoperaza 11y ago
So why draw the line at disclosure? Why not abolish the secret ballot, if politics should be a "contact sport" as you say. If anything, votes are even more powerful and important than money.
- ddingus 11y ago
  Oh, now I can reply. Must be a glitch. Let me make an edit and take care of a few things.. This is a good topic, and your question warrants dome discussion.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    I've noticed this strange quirk of Hacker News. When a comment is new, you can reply by going to its permalink (clicking the timestamp), but not in context. (Awaiting your reply!)
    - ddingus 11y ago
      That is what happened. More in a bit.
- ddingus 11y ago
  There isn't any "should be" in politics. It IS a contact sport. Always has been. I am, at this time, unsure if votes actually are more important than money. They are supposed to be, and in theory they are. The law says they are. But, the reality of how things play out is very seriously questionable at best. The secret vote assures every voter is free to vote their conscience, free of coercion, discrimination, etc... Right now, we've got Gerrymandering, attacks on the Voting Rights Act, and lots of other efforts to basically cut down on the number of voters voting! It's a simple, "we don't like those other people" kind of dynamic doing us no real good. Public votes, say against large corporations, would lead to people failing job searches quite often, would it not? Public votes might result in things like, North Korea having an election that went 100 percent for the supreme leader. Who would dissent? On a basic level, making the vote public would discourage voting and increase discrimination. I can't see a reason to hold someone accountable for voting their best interests, can you? I can totally see people wanting to punish and or reward people for votes they don't like, or do like. But that isn't what voting is for! Voting is where the "free" comes from in "free" society. If we are controlled or very significantly pressured to vote in ways the power likes, does that not only serve the power? Of course it does, which is why we don't do it. Speech is different. It's the debate, and it's about settling lots of issues that law really does not cover well. We can't, for example, make a reasonable, "don't be an asshole" type of law. But we can hold assholes accountable through speech in the hopes that they will reconsider being assholes, though they don't really have to do that. That's also where the "free" in free society comes from. So, then what about the freedom of those with lots of money? The "money is speech" and "corporations are people" proponents are basically erecting shields and proxies through which they can do things that impact a lot of people without those people knowing who did it to them. That's not OK. Worse, we can't really vote out people with money. They tend to own things and when they own them, they tend to exert control over them, and that impacts us. If we elect a bad leader, we can debate that, vote and try again. The key here is we know who holds the power. When it's anonymous money and proxies, we don't know anything really. Our elections, law, lives could be impacted by some hater from the other side of the world, who just happens to prefer nordic women to black women, for example. A silly one, but I don't want to offend anyone here. With power comes some responsibility and accountability, otherwise, it's just raw power and greed. That's not OK either. Disclosure would at least bring some personal responsibility to everyone in politics, not just those who lack the means to hide it from everyone. I would much prefer we fund elections with public money, require disclosure on political spending, and vote our best interests however we see them after processing all of that. But, it may just be enough to require disclosure. If somebody spends a few hundred million large on gay or minority or woman hostile advocacy, all of those people impacted can and should respond in like kind. This is going to limit the kinds of things people spend on, and those limits are appropriate checks on what is otherwise a lot of raw power. In the same vein, someone dropping a few hundred million large on STEM policy advocacy to make the nation compete better, all of those people impacted need to respond in like kind too. It may be a good response, or maybe the STEM advocacy is harmful somehow. Whatever the case. The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Proponents of Citizens United made a basic market of ideas and freedom argument. Great! That's what they got too, and we've seen it play out for a while now. Many of us are not impressed with the outcome. How do we hold these anonymous forces acting through multiple corporate proxies to account for their negative influence on how we live, work, play, love? Vote to require disclosure. That's a great first step, and a step of that nature is precisely why we can't have a public vote. Say we vote it, and it fails by just a little tiny bit. What would be the response of those who want to continue acting anonymously through proxies? Target the shit out of those anti voters. Why not? They have the bucks, they have the shield, and they get to speak without ever being spoken to, just like kings, lords and nobility of the old world we left to form this nation!

ddingus 11y ago

He could have avoided job loss by being humble, considerate and understanding of the potential impact his donation could have on the lives of his coworkers. There are no rational justifications for denying gay people the ability to marry who they love. And we are at that point of awareness now, no going back. Many of the people who got us here paid a price comparable to Brendan's, and many more paid worse, or with their lives. He can get another job, and maybe he can reconsider how he sees the people he might ask to work for him too.